none so blind as them that won't see...
Ah, leading by example I see.
[quote="Leave the pettiness at the door.[/quote]
Cheney is your avatar now, McG? I suppose that's meant to leave your opponents sputtering. I think it's kind of funny myself, though...
Say, with all due respect, how wrote that long defense of insider deals you posted a little while ago? I didn't see an attribution. Or does that not matter?
McG
Regarding your new avatar.
Who is that guy?
I know I've seen him somewhere.
Blind faith is what all religions - including Bushism - rely upon to keep the fear going.
One of the reasons there is no help coming from the rest of the world in the rebuilding of the Iraq we destroyed, is that no bids were offered anywhere. This, apparently, is one of the things the brits have questioned, since they were the only other part of the "coaltion." Now, where will all this money come from to pay Kellogg Brown, Haliburton, Bechtel, and the other companies? We've never yet seen a figure on the estimated costs of the war, and our budget is depleted. The talk originally had been that the producing oil fields would generate enough income to take care of all the vague expenses. So there's a simple question? Who will pay these companies? As various oil companies have pointed out (Dutch, british, other) they've had long and expert experience in the rebuilding and maintenance of this job. But nobody asked them - which would have helped ease the financial burden.
Just another thing for the backs of the taxpayers. Not, of course, for the blind, because they can't see this.
I leave off sources if I feel that the source would be attacked instead of the meaning of the statement as seems to happen on occasion.
Yes mama, the American taxpayers will be paying for this in the immediate future. Bush had already appriated the money it his initial demand of however many billions of dollars it was...
That renders the info contained rather suspect, doesn't it? Or are we share the blind faith that mamajuana refers to in her post?
Suspect as you will, it doesn't change the words.
Oh boy, mcg - now there's an argument that would have failed 10th grade English.
"I leave off sources if I feel that the source would be attacked instead of the meaning of the statement as seems to happen on occasion. "
Does it never enter your brain that the source is an integral part of the meaning? (The rest of what you say "as seems to happen on occasion.") is nonsense. This has happened before. You do long quotes, and then later say you quoted out of context or refuse to cite the source, for fear the source of the quote would be attacked instead of the meaning.
This leads to several interpretations. You don't know the source; The source said other things that may even be contradictory, so you just take the parts that you want (like the Bush report recently on the ecology - where they excised all the global warming parts); you are showing off partial knowledge and getting defensive when people armed with more facts question you.
You know, McG, you can cite your source. Believe it or not, that gives more authenticity to what you try to say. Most of us here have studied a lot, read a lot, are quite current with much, and tend to have sources that are far and wide-reaching. So trying to talk down to us doesn't accomplish much except prove that the young have much to learn.
Leaving off the source makes any commentary meaningless. It's practically like plagiarism. Why cite it as a quote and not reveal the writer? Might as well claim it as your own words, McG!
8 posts later and none of you have said anything about what was written. Just a bunch of whining. Typical.
source
What is deranging is not the admissal of contracts to favorised companies, but the preceding fact that sovereign regions are invaded and that excuses are fabricated to do this by a group of pathological liars. That's what's ugly. It stems from a distorted set of ethical beliefs. I find it borderline inhuman, or at least extremely primitive, to prioritize the lust for money above all things.
Quote:I find it borderline inhuman, or at least extremely primitive, to prioritize the lust for money above all things.
I do to, wolf.
Can you attribute with any degree of likliness that this, in fact, occurred?
Please share with the rest of us!
wolf, I wonder why so many people fall into that trap of making money their primary motivation for life? What has gone wrong? Why the Enrons, Worldcoms, Imclones, Arthur Andersens, and all the others in government and industry? Why do not more CEO's question their own high salaries and benefits while they lay off workers? What is happening to our ethics and humanity?
c.i.
Psyche of the right
Study: How politicians become reactionary conservatives or fascists
Newsnight report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3150783.stm
This obviously is one of the groups that HOWARD Dean tapped into recently---congratulations----you have the dubious distinction of having joined the group who would use the US State Dept and the US military to do SOCIAL WORK around the world and hell with US global interests which would taint any effort to protect any such interests and make that effort immoral.
I don't see what has been protected. The U.S. were on top of the world in 2000, and apart from the political Palestinian problem and the looming environmental crisis, the future looked promising. Then the Bush crew came into power and ruined it all.
They are NOT helping the U.S., nor are they helping the world. Their personal, biographical frustrations stand in the way of responsible policy making. They are slowly but surely assuring a black future for humankind.
Wolf wrote:
I don't see what has been protected. The U.S. were on top of the world in 2000, and apart from the political Palestinian problem and the looming environmental crisis, the future looked promising. Then the Bush crew came into power and ruined it all.
Seems you are in sync with the Clinton doctrine of status quo (read) stand in a closet with Monica and fire a few hundred cruise missiles at the mountains if Afghanistan and foster unethical and immoral behavior at home.
I don't know if such a rule applies here in A2K as it did in Abuzz, but the person who initiates a topic can ask those who violate the spirit of the topic to please move on to another area.
I'm going to try that here, asking that Perception please not return to this thread. His posts don't give an opinion about the questions asked here, show a desire to do nothing more than disrupt and embitter.
